My first reaction to this presentation is wonder at the vastness of the universe. But then at the end they make a logical fallacy by equating this with insignificance, and even more illogically, saying this somehow negates geocentrism (since any point can be a centre, no matter the scale of what it is occupying). Also, this only looks in one direction- there is also the micro-universe, which is equally awesome to contemplate. Another thought: I will try to find the original source document, but I read a essay claiming that, in the context of the scale of the universe (both micro and macro), the human being is at the midpoint. So in terms of scale, humans can be seen as the centre as well. Here is an interactive graphic of what I'm talking about:

All that real estate out there and the only signs of intelligence are on the Earth. And as a coincidence, Earth is the only place where God became man. Now, where is the center of the universe?

CS

The futility of my attempts to wrap my head around the vastness of creation only goes to show just how powerful Our Lord truly is -- and this is just that which is material!

The closing statement claims that we are not the center of the universe while only providing an animated representative illustration for the supposed scale of the universe, as though this is somehow definitive evidence to support this claim.

I'm not surprised...

On a side note, I can't wait much longer for The Principle to be released! My bit is just about chomped through in anticipation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now, the largeness of the Universe is observable in terms of degrees of circles, namely full circle rotated a full circle around it diametre as axis, but not in terms of distance measures EXCEPT insofar as we either have direct such for smaller things (it is larger than earth which can be measured) or indirect such for nearer things (it is larger than the largest distance measured by any kind of trigonometry).

Now, for distance of Moon we can do optical trigonometry from earth, using two observatories at equator, nearest distance going through centre of earth and distances along equator equal either way, and observing moon at same time.

Triangulation to Sun is possible using angle of sunlight at Moon.

And once distance to Sun is known triangulation can be made to close planets. The Universe IS larger than that.

The hatred of those who despise and ridicule the idea of a Creator blows my mind (as evidenced by the comments for this picture in the original post by "Amazing Things in the World")...they go on and on about how insignificant we are, but it gives them no humility whatsoever -- they insist everyone who believes in God is a fool, and their great "wisdom" must be accepted by all!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

They have a low opinion of humanity in general, but except their god - their collective self.

Rick DeLano

The Catholic cosmology is a deeply salutary antidote to the present, through-the-looking-glass impotence of the multiverse (a theory which, at one and the same time, represents the end of science, and the perversion of its method in service of an antitheology which is, as Hans-Georg Lundahl has indicated, profoundly antihuman at its root.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am actually interested in the argument as such.

After what I said about trigonometry, is anyone willing to say the universe is so vast that it circling around us is physically impossible and absurd? Or have I answered the charge just given?

After watching part of the video, one must of course say that Sirius A, Pollux, Aldebaran are allotted their sizes through a calculus taking into account two things:

a) distance considering they show no parallax in a universe where every star must show parallax (as think Heliocentrics) whether perceptible or not,

b) apparent angular size in observations.

I am not arguing with apparent angular size in observations. But if these things are only ten times further off than the sun, or whatever the minimum distance is to be beyond Pluto and Kuiper Belt, then they are obviously NOT bigger than it. It is only by getting the inflated distance measures derived from parallax which is derived from heliocentrism that they "must" be so.

I am thus not sure that VY Canis Majoris is not given a size beyond the actual one of all the universe.

(I haven't checked but, assume that is greater than Kuiper Belt extended in a sphere around the Sun.)

A pretty good confutation of initial Newtonian Polycentric Universe Model was done by Olbers:

I agree with his solution nr 1, and I do not agree with his problem about it.

My little problem is this: some exoplanets HAVE been not concluded but directly sighted.* If they are very near, why do they only reflect light from their star and not from the sun?

Of course, Olbers was working from within the cosmology of Newton-Laplace. And in that one, the Universe has to be both infinite, and equal in density all over and ab aeterno, OR there is a God. For if it is ab aeterno, and finite, it means the stars would already have collided in a big lump due to gravity. Same if some parts of the universe were more dense than others.

13:27 [on video] - Red shift can come from two kinds of Doppler effect, I hear:

a) light source moving away,

b) light source moving in a circle observed from Centre.

The latter is compatible with a finite and totally Geocentric Universe.

Quoting CMI:

66. How is red-shift explained?

The red-shift of starlight is a decrease in the energy of the light. This energy decrease results in a lengthening of the wavelength of the light, measured with an instrument called a spectrometer. Red is the rainbow color with the longest wavelength, hence the name "red-shift." Stars do not actually become red in appearance since the wavelength change is usually slight. Almost every star and galaxy is found to be red-shifted. The following list summarizes some of the alternative explanations for the origin of this stellar red-shift.

1.Stellar Motion. If a star moves outward from the earth, its light energy will be reduced and its wavelength stretched or red-shifted. Stars and entire galaxies show varying amounts of red-shift, therefore implying a variety of speeds for these objects. Police actually use this same effect with radar to measure the speed of cars. Stellar motion is often taken as evidence in support of the Big Bang theory. Stars are assumed to be speeding outward as a result of the explosion. This is not the only explanation of red-shift, however.

2.Gravitation. As light leaves a star, the star's gravity may slightly lengthen the wavelength of the light. A gravitational red-shift could also result from starlight passing near a massive object in space, such as a galaxy. As the light escapes from a strong gravity field, it loses energy, similar to what happens to a person struggling to the top of a mountain.

3.Second-Order Doppler Effect. A light source moving at right angles (tangentially) to an observer will always be red-shifted. This can be observed in the laboratory by using a high-speed turntable. A detector is placed in the center and a gamma radiation source is placed on the outside edge. The gamma energy is seen to decrease, or "red-shift," as the turntable speed increases. This is an intriguing explanation for stellar red-shift. When applied to stars, it implies that the universe may be in circular motion instead of radial expansion.

4.Photon Interaction. It is possible that light waves exchange energy during their movement across space and lose some energy in the process. A loss of light energy is equivalent to a "reddening" of its light. A theoretical understanding of this proposed "tired light" process has not yet been developed.

Any of these four explanations, alone or in combination, may be responsible for red-shift. We do not know enough about space to be certain of the source of stellar red-shift.

Here I was referring to what they call "3.Second-Order Doppler Effect"

I do not in fact know either how Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is detected or how to explain it. But explaining it - supposing it is correctly detected - as a remnant of a very distant time when all the sky was bright is something of an act of faith.

It is an explanation that concurs with the evidence CITED (Robert Sungenis might know of some contradicting evidence, I do not in the writing moment), and also with the now prevailing theory. But it is not obvious how this would be the only possible explanation, i e how this would be proven fact.

Here is a dialogue on that assumption:

Anonymised

If visible light has been red-shifted to microwaves, wouldn't that imply that gamma rays have red shifted to visible light? I guess that all things being equal, there would now be more low frequency waves than high frequency waves as time has passed; but the video seemed to imply that once the visible light red shifted to lower frequencies, there was nothing more to see. Is it just that at the time of the big bang, there was very little gamma radiation (or higher), and a lot of it has since been absorbed?

DrPhysicsA

Yes indeed. The photons which would have been produced as a result of the matter and anti-antimatter annihilating shortly after the big bang would almost certainly have been in the gamma ray region. But over time as the universe has expanded they had stretched such that they are now in the microwave region.

Unnecessary on Geocentric assumptions.

Two more on that video:

a) CMBR could be caused by movement of stellatum.

b) Olbers was not counting with interstellar matter deflecting light.

I am not sure if

i) an infinite though not very dense amount of deflecting matter would have kept the nights as dark as we see them
or

ij) an infinite amount of deflection would have changed the paths but still given an infinite amount of light from different light sources.

I can however say, even with an Olbers paradox not really disproving infinite universe, it is mathematically absurd, and neither infinite nor expanding universe is required if one accepts Geocentrism worked by a God upholding what He had created.

When?

These posts about size of Universe with relation to Geocentrism are from between March 25 and April 6 of the year of Our Lord 2014./HGL

Added last minute:

But perhaps I have been misunderstanding NS's point all the time? Perhaps you meant we ar so small we cannot be SIGNIFICANT enough to be the centre of the Universe?

Mark Shea wrote something about Puny Human's Vast Universe which contained a few errors answered both by Robert Sungenis and myself. However one passage was/is still so evidently right:

In Scripture, the action takes place on earth, not in the sky, and the main story is of God and his people, culminating in the revelation of Christ. Astronomical events, such as the star of Bethlehem, point to what God is doing in the affairs of men. Like road signs, these phenomena point the pilgrim soul on his way to Christ and are then quickly forgotten.

But in an age that has come to doubt or even forget Christ, pagan ideas—including ideas about the heavens—can reassert themselves. We live in such a time.

It is not unusual to meet people who have a physicalist view of man’s place in the cosmos. One particularly crude argument asserts that the Bible errs by focusing on the earth and not the sky, because, as H. G. Wells said, "Man is utterly insignificant compared to the size of the universe!" They produce numerous illustrations of our smallness for popular science shows. A camera pulls back until the earth shrinks to (in Carl Sagan’s phrase) a "small blue dot," then the solar system becomes a pinpoint that vanishes into an arm of the Milky Way, which itself becomes an indistinct smudge of light disappearing into billions of other galaxies. People set real store by such thinking. But that’s not because they are hard-headed scientists looking at cold facts. It’s because they are poets who think they are philosophers. They can’t refrain from supposing that immense differences in physical size mean something. But as G. K. Chesterton dryly replied to his friend Wells’s contention, "Man is small compared to the nearest tree."

In short, size doesn’t matter. Michael Jordan does not have greater spiritual worth than Michael J. Fox because he’s taller. Because people are the size of ants compared to the Twin Towers does not mean the buildings were more important than the people killed in them. But when size differences become vast, we tend to wax poetic and to forget these obvious facts.